If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

"University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"FF: WRKJB?

"University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"FF: WRKJB?

A judge hearing the lawsuit filed by a Daily Camera reporter seeking the release of the JonBenet Ramsey grand jury's secret indictment on Thursday ordered Boulder County District Attorney Stan Garnett to show why the document should be kept secret.

Camera reporter Charlie Brennan and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press filed the lawsuit in Boulder District Court last month, citing the Colorado Criminal Justice Records Act in an effort to compel Garnett to release the un-prosecuted indictment of John and Patsy Ramsey on charges relating to their 6-year-old daughter's death.

The Camera is not a plaintiff, but supports the lawsuit.

The district attorney's office and attorneys for Brennan and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press presented initial arguments before retired Weld County Judge Robert Lowenbach on Oct. 11.

Lowenbach ruled Thursday that releasing the requested document would not be a breach of grand-jury secrecy rules.

"The court concludes that the secrecy required in the grand jury process... is not compromised through a process that requires the presentment of the indictment in open court," Lowenbach wrote in the four-page ruling. "Under this procedure, there is no breach of the secrecy and confidentiality expected in grand jury proceedings.

"It is ordered therefore that the defendant (Garnett) show cause why he should not be required to disclose the requested documents."

The Camera reported earlier this year that the Boulder County grand jury voted in 1999 to indict the slain 6-year-old's parents on charges of child abuse resulting in death -- but that then-District Attorney Alex Hunter refused to sign the document and prosecute the Ramseys.

Attorneys for Brennan and the press committee argued the indictment should be disclosed publicly because it's a criminal justice record that reflects official action by the grand jury.

Chief Trial Deputy Sean Finn, the custodian of records for the Boulder County District Attorney's Office, argued that the grand jury's oath of secrecy still stood and that releasing the requested document could negatively affect future grand juries.

'Justifying an indictment'

In his ruling, Lowenbach wrote that the Colorado Supreme Court has declared that the reasons for grand jury secrecy are to prevent the escape of those who might be indicted, to encourage witnesses to come forward, to encourage uninhibited discussion of a case, and to prevent disclosure of derogatory information against someone who has not been indicted.

[snip]
)
But Lowenbach wrote that Brennan's assertion, if true, meant the evidence presented to the grand jurors was enough to warrant an indictment and thus did not require secrecy.

"In this case, the only factor that may be implicated is the prevention of derogatory information being released against someone who has not been indicted," Lowenbach wrote. "In this case, assuming as asserted by the plaintiffs that the grand jury voted to indict Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey, the evidence rose to a level in the minds of the grand jurors justifying an indictment."

While the existence of the indictment has not been confirmed in open court, at the Oct. 11 hearing, Lowenbach cleared the room to discuss with prosecutors whether it did, in fact, exist to "make sure we're arguing over something." After a short discussion, the hearing proceeded.

Garnett previously rejected two requests by the Camera and Brennan seeking the release of the indictment under the Colorado Open Records Act.

"It's a complicated situation and the most important thing in my office is complying with the law," Garnett said Thursday. "We just want to make sure we comply with all our legal obligations."

Garnett said he will review the ruling before making a decision on how to proceed.

[snip]

But in January of this year, the Camera reported that members of the grand jury confirmed they voted to indict both John and Patsy Ramsey and that Hunter refused to sign the indictment, believing he could not prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

In Thursday's ruling, Lowenbach also wrote that the disclosure of the indictment would serve the public interest to show transparency of the prosecutor's decision not to prosecute anyone in the case.

"This court agrees that transparency of a prosecutor's decision not to proceed with an indictment from the grand jury is in the public interest," he wrote. "Recognizing that the grand jury's 'indictment' is not required to be supported by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, but that the district attorney cannot proceed with a prosecution unless he has a reasonable belief that he can obtain a conviction, the process followed in this case offered citizens no opportunity to consider the conflict between the decisions of the prosecutor and the grand jury."

"University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"FF: WRKJB?

"University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"FF: WRKJB?

"This court agrees that transparency of a prosecutor's decision not to proceed with an indictment from the grand jury is in the public interest," he wrote. "Recognizing that the grand jury's 'indictment' is not required to be supported by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, but that the district attorney cannot proceed with a prosecution unless he has a reasonable belief that he can obtain a conviction, the process followed in this case offered citizens no opportunity to consider the conflict between the decisions of the prosecutor and the grand jury."

OMG! I am speechless!!!

Judge Lowenbach actually has the cajones to go up against almost 17 years of corruption and Team Ramsey and the Boulder DA's office and SAY THAT?!! I can't believe it! Seriously. All these years, we waited for someone, ANYONE, to do the right thing, and we've always been disappointed. And now, it looks like this judge might actually give the truth a chance.

Dare I allow myself to hope? Is the lid finally going to be blown off of the Ramsey cesspool of lies?

I wonder what Garnett will pull out of his bag of tricks to keep from complying with the judge's ruling. I bet Alex Hunter, Mary Lacy, John Ramsey (and others whose hands are dirty this case), have Garnett on speed dial right now, begging, demanding, offering, and threatening him to find SOME way to keep that indictment sealed.

Judge Lowenbach actually has the cajones to go up against almost 17 years of corruption and Team Ramsey and the Boulder DA's office and SAY THAT?!! I can't believe it! Seriously. All these years, we waited for someone, ANYONE, to do the right thing, and we've always been disappointed. And now, it looks like this judge might actually give the truth a chance.

Dare I allow myself to hope? Is the lid finally going to be blown off of the Ramsey cesspool of lies?

I'll defer to our wise mod Moab; her response to the news was...and I quote,

"Yay."

Let me translate that for those who don't speak RDI:

"Believe it when you see it."

I wonder what Garnett will pull out of his bag of tricks to keep from complying with the judge's ruling. I bet Alex Hunter, Mary Lacy, John Ramsey (and others whose hands are dirty this case), have Garnett on speed dial right now, begging, demanding, offering, and threatening him to find SOME way to keep that indictment sealed.

Where'd they find Judge Lowenbach, anyway? He appears to be a fair and reasonable judge. Did he get lost during the floods and wander into Boulder?

I bet his phone hasn't stopped ringing.

"Hello, Judge Lowenback? It's me, Team Ramsey. We need to have a serious talk...."

"University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"FF: WRKJB?

W

wowowowowowowowowowowowowowowow

let's hope and pray this is not something that will go the way of everything else in this case.

Let's hope the judge, after garnett's agument as to why the gj testimony should be kept secret, rules on the side of the law. The side of the law can only mean one thing...the testimony will be open for all to read.

Yes i am yelling because like koldkase i think i am dreaming so if i yell loud enough i might wake up.

I am unaware of anyone who's profited from exploiting the Ramsey murder over a longer period of time, with a greater disregard for the principles of accuracy and fairness, than the production team of Mills and Tracey.They truly do inhabit a different moral universe from real journalists. It's the difference between journalism and propaganda.
Alan Prendergast,reporter for Westword

I am unaware of anyone who's profited from exploiting the Ramsey murder over a longer period of time, with a greater disregard for the principles of accuracy and fairness, than the production team of Mills and Tracey.They truly do inhabit a different moral universe from real journalists. It's the difference between journalism and propaganda.
Alan Prendergast,reporter for Westword